395 cubes & Stealth Ram
#1
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 2
From: Mims, Florida
Car: '87 IROCZ
Engine: 395 ZZ4
Transmission: ProBuilt 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9 bolt 3.70s
395 cubes & Stealth Ram
Would the Stealth Ram lend itself better to a 395 cu.in SBC vs the SuperRam???? (that I already have)
I was thinking that with 395 cubes, I'd have plenty of torque and bottom end,, and I thought that maybe the SuperRam might be a restriction at top end. So, does the Stealth Ram fit into my logic better?? I would expect to be shifting at most 6,000RPM, but maybe only 5600RPM. Right now, I let the 700R4 shift itself and it shifts at about 5400RPM.
I was thinking that with 395 cubes, I'd have plenty of torque and bottom end,, and I thought that maybe the SuperRam might be a restriction at top end. So, does the Stealth Ram fit into my logic better?? I would expect to be shifting at most 6,000RPM, but maybe only 5600RPM. Right now, I let the 700R4 shift itself and it shifts at about 5400RPM.
#3
Supreme Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 1
From: MN
Car: 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP
Engine: LS3
Transmission: 6L80E
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Doc...I say...YES!
I believe that the Stealth Ram out of the box flows more than a mildly ported Super Ram...
For the money...it is a great deal...IF you don't have to worry about emissions...Thank Jebus that MN dropped their emissions requirements a few years ago...WOO HOO!
That is why I went with one for my 406...I already have too much low end and not enough traction.
I believe that the Stealth Ram out of the box flows more than a mildly ported Super Ram...
For the money...it is a great deal...IF you don't have to worry about emissions...Thank Jebus that MN dropped their emissions requirements a few years ago...WOO HOO!
That is why I went with one for my 406...I already have too much low end and not enough traction.
#4
Supreme Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, NV
Car: 1990 Iroc-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700R4
I'd have to agree with that. The HSR probably outflows the Superram. Both are great intakes but the Superram is designed to maintain lowend torque, while the HSRs first priority is highend horsepower. The reason it is so dirt cheap is that all holley did basically was convert a tunnelram to EFI and that also explains why it is not emissions legal. If Holley had to make it emissions compliant I'm sure it would cost about the same as a superram.
In short, you should get the HSR.
In short, you should get the HSR.
#5
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 2
From: Mims, Florida
Car: '87 IROCZ
Engine: 395 ZZ4
Transmission: ProBuilt 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9 bolt 3.70s
Well, that was what I was thinking. 395 cubes will get me the bottom end torque, and the HSR will get the top end that I have been missing on my IROCZ. I am re-reading the GMHTP article again as I write this.
I have an '87 with the remote coil,, so I assume that I can retain that distributor if I use the HSR,, Is that correct?
I have an '87 with the remote coil,, so I assume that I can retain that distributor if I use the HSR,, Is that correct?
#7
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 2
From: Mims, Florida
Car: '87 IROCZ
Engine: 395 ZZ4
Transmission: ProBuilt 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9 bolt 3.70s
I have an '87, I think my car already has the small distributor because I have the remote coil.
I re-read the GMHTP article and I was a bit annoyed at all the nick nack adapters you need, mainly for the fuel. I will buy about 100 of these things before a get the right ones,, PITA.
I re-read the GMHTP article and I was a bit annoyed at all the nick nack adapters you need, mainly for the fuel. I will buy about 100 of these things before a get the right ones,, PITA.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally posted by doc
I have an '87, I think my car already has the small distributor because I have the remote coil.
I re-read the GMHTP article and I was a bit annoyed at all the nick nack adapters you need, mainly for the fuel. I will buy about 100 of these things before a get the right ones,, PITA.
I have an '87, I think my car already has the small distributor because I have the remote coil.
I re-read the GMHTP article and I was a bit annoyed at all the nick nack adapters you need, mainly for the fuel. I will buy about 100 of these things before a get the right ones,, PITA.
This post might help clear up some of your fuel fitting questions and concerns. It's really not that bad, especially with the kits specifically designed for the HSR.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=163946
HTH
#10
I have a 383w/ 6"rods comp cams nitrous HP 268 cam, 210cc afr heads, headers blah blah.
since my combo is setup for most of its power above 3000, the stealth ram would be my best choice for EFI wouldn't it?
I mean a stock tpi would drop off only 1000 rpm after I started making power right?
opinions?
also, when siamesing runners, would the most benefit come from siemesing the intake manifold so each cylinder could use the volume of 2 runners?
could a stock tpi ever be modified enough to support an engine such as mine?
since my combo is setup for most of its power above 3000, the stealth ram would be my best choice for EFI wouldn't it?
I mean a stock tpi would drop off only 1000 rpm after I started making power right?
opinions?
also, when siamesing runners, would the most benefit come from siemesing the intake manifold so each cylinder could use the volume of 2 runners?
could a stock tpi ever be modified enough to support an engine such as mine?
#11
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
From: Dale City, VA
Car: 91 GTA and 85 IROC
Engine: 355
Transmission: gear jammer
Axle/Gears: 4.11
Originally posted by resago
could a stock tpi ever be modified enough to support an engine such as mine?
could a stock tpi ever be modified enough to support an engine such as mine?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post